cs.AIApr 23, 2026

Evaluating AI Meeting Summaries with a Reusable Cross-Domain Pipeline

Authors: Philip Zhong, Don Wang, Jason Zhang

Organizations: Webex Suite AI Cisco Systems, Inc. San Jose, California, USA

Abstract

Industrial teams often deploy large language model features before stable regression or model selection evaluation exists. We present a reusable evaluation system for AI meeting summaries that combines structured ground-truth (GT) construction, fixed candidate generation, claim-grounded scoring, persisted reporting, and a privacy-bounded online monitoring and nomination interface. The online evidence is not itself a benchmark: privacy-safe aggregate exports show active monitoring, hard regime detection, and directional movement without exposing customer data. We benchmark the offline path on 114 meetings across city_council, private_data, and whitehouse_press_briefings, yielding 340 completed meeting-model pairs and 680 judge runs for gpt-4.1-mini, gpt-5-mini, and gpt-5.1. Under this fixed protocol, accuracy differences are not statistically significant under Holm correction (corrected p-values 0.053-0.448), although gpt-4.1-mini has the highest mean accuracy (0.583); the significant separation is on retention, where gpt-5.1 leads on completeness (0.886) and coverage (0.942). Typed slices isolate whitehouse_press_briefings as an accuracy-hard regime, and a later focused rerun over gpt-4.1, gpt-5-mini, and gpt-5.4 reuses the same stack under the same judges and metrics. This extended preprint keeps those core results aligned with the formal submission while adding a more detailed repository-level account of cross-domain reuse from the companion AI-search paper and an additional typed DeepEval contrastive analysis. Model naming note. Running text uses canonical model names on first introduction. Tables, filenames, and artifact IDs retain compact report labels for consistency with the packaged benchmark outputs. Table A maps the two conventions and is repeated in Section 4.3 where candidate-generation settings are defined.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Aug 6, 2026cs.HC

What Current AI Benchmarks Leave Unmeasured: Modality, Search, Citations, and Implications (for Safety Evaluations)

Large language model (LLM) benchmark evaluations are routinely used to support claims about model safety, reliability, and deployment readiness. Yet most evaluations rely on a single access modality (model APIs), perform a single run per prompt, and report accuracy as the primary outcome metric, without accounting for conditions such as web search that may have effects on model behavior in deployment. We audit these assumptions for one of the most widely-used LLMs, comparing two modalities, ChatGPT's chat UI and OpenAI's API, with and without web search enabled. We use a stratified total sample of 401 prompts from two popular benchmarks, BBQ and SafetyBench, collecting 4,812 total responses across three repeated runs per prompt. Beyond standard performance measures, we evaluate model output dimensions including response consistency, response text similarity, citation grounding, and abstention behavior. For instance, chat UI responses were less accurate than API responses on both benchmarks with search disabled. Enabling web search reduced accuracy by up to 8 percentage points, and even reversed the direction of modality performance trends for one benchmark. Repeated runs of the same prompt produced inconsistent responses in up to 21% of prompts. The two modalities also grounded answers in different citations, and abstention behavior was also inconsistent across both modalities. These results illustrate that, even within a model family, reporting only simple accuracy metrics can obscure important forms of model behavioral variation relevant to AI safety assessments. We argue that AI safety evaluations should systematically account for modality, multi-run consistency, search conditions, and response-level behaviors to better reflect how deployed AI systems behave in practice.
Ro Encarnación, Tina Behzad, Emma Lurie +1
Artificial Intelligence BenchmarksSafety BenchmarksApplication Programming InterfacesCitationsText Modality
AskPDF
Sep 3, 2026cs.AI

Speak for Me: Giving LLMs the Situational Awareness to Participate in a Meeting

In online meeting delegation, LLM agents fail to recognize when to speak. With no structured way to track stances, coverage, and floor, they miss the moments where they should contribute. Prompt-only delegates stay silent on 51.4% of the absent participant's talking opportunities on the AMI corpus. We present CAPA (Collaborative Agent Predictive Architecture), an architecture for online meeting delegation. A Perceiver updates the meeting state from each observed turn. A Predictor forecasts how the conversation will continue. A Controller decides whether to speak and which proposition to surface. A Generator phrases the chosen contribution in the participant's style. Two judges score the forecast and the action against the next observed turn. A Recalibrator updates the meeting state from those verdicts for future decisions. To evaluate online delegation, we introduce an episode-level protocol that scores whether, when, and what a delegate contributes around the participant's actual idea units. The protocol's schema-constrained LLM judges align with human annotations at Cohen's kappa = 0.71. On 137 AMI meetings, CAPA reduces the silence rate from 51.4% to 2.5%, doubles credited recovery (26.1 --> 52.2), and keeps hallucination at 0.6%. The failure mode shifts from omission to selection, with each residual near-miss attributable to a specific module of the architecture. Mechanism ablations identify the meeting state as the lever that closes the recognition gap, where raw-context scaling alone does not.
Muneeb Khan, Frederic Kirstein, Terry Ruas +1
SessionsDelegationLarge Language Model JudgesCorpus
AskPDF
Apr 28, 2026cs.CL

LLM-ReSum: A Framework for LLM Reflective Summarization through Self-Evaluation

Reliable evaluation of large language model (LLM)-generated summaries remains an open challenge, particularly across heterogeneous domains and document lengths. We conduct a comprehensive meta-evaluation of 14 automatic summarization metrics and LLM-based evaluators across seven datasets spanning five domains, covering documents from short news articles to long scientific, governmental, and legal texts (2K-27K words) with over 1,500 human-annotated summaries. Our results show that traditional lexical overlap metrics (e.g., ROUGE, BLEU) exhibit weak or negative correlation with human judgments, while task-specific neural metrics and LLM-based evaluators achieve substantially higher alignment, especially for linguistic quality assessment. Leveraging these findings, we propose LLM-ReSum, a self-reflective summarization framework that integrates LLM-based evaluation and generation in a closed feedback loop without model finetuning. Across three domains, LLM-ReSum improves low-quality summaries by up to 33% in factual accuracy and 39% in coverage, with human evaluators preferring refined summaries in 89% of cases. We additionally introduce PatentSumEval, a new human-annotated benchmark for legal document summarization comprising 180 expert-evaluated summaries. All code and datasets will be released in GitHub.
Huyen Nguyen, Haoxuan Zhang, Yang Zhang +2
SummarizationLarge Language Model EvaluationModel Self-AssessmentLinguistics
AskPDF